We talk to Anthony Kaminskas, Founder of AK BETS, about the ongoing issue of feeds in the bookmaker market.

Having launched as a rails bookmaker in 2021, then transferring to an online sportsbook quickly after, issues relating to the quality of feeds are a consistent pain point for AK BETS, just like the majority of other bookmakers. Here, we go over the problem and what can be done as a result.

OLBG: Can you break down the main problems that you have as a bookmaker with feeds? In an ideal world what should they resemble?

AK: There are just a handful of feed suppliers in the industry and all will be from various angles. My background is Risk & Trading, in addition to pro gaming, and, more laterly, bookmaking. I 'd be extremely specific about my requirements from a feed both in-play and pre-off since the appropriate circulation of margin is important. And I haven't yet discovered a feed that is accurately considering altering bookie expenses by item. This lack of dynamism is irritating for me as an operator as I'm anticipated to bake a cake without all the needed active ingredients.

OLBG: How huge (or small) is the concern of amount over quality?

AK: The industry has actually progressed to value quantity more than quality and my belief is that it's gone way too far. It's now pure amount, producing a lot of derivative markets no one desires or bets on. The sweet spot for me is reigning back amount and including a little bit more quality into the mix.

OLBG: What makes a feed bad? Who benefits from them being the method that they are?

AK: Feed rates that does not precisely factor in altering bookie expenses by item is initially bad for the bookmaker who has to take in these inefficiencies. What's bad for the goose is eventually bad for the glimpse with the ripple effect being a bad experience for clients - be it rates, stake limitations or account closures.

OLBG: How does this impact your service design?

AK: It's hard to put a number on it, but given our size at present we are required to work within these restraints with little option of enhancing something we think isn't good enough. We can only lead our horses to water, we can't make them drink.

OLBG: And how does it impact your relationship/dealings with other stakeholders? (Partners, affiliates, competitors and so on)

AK: Very little result per se. We calculate what we are prepared to spend for a deal considering all variables and it's up to others whether they desire to deal or no deal. Regarding competitors everybody is basically using the exact same four or 5 feeds for the majority of sports so there's little differentiation, especially in-play. We incentivise our customers with our Big Prices tab, instant withdrawals, quick client service and our complimentary bet clubs, all of which sit outside fundamental prices feeds.

OLBG: What effect would better feeds have on punters?

AK: It would offer bookies more confidence in their rates which, in turn, indicates less barriers to consumers positioning a bet without friction.

OLBG: You've spoken about constructing your own feed - how practical is that?

AK: I've had a couple of conversations with individuals about this over the last month. My background is in trading and professional gambling. My computer skills are close to absolutely no. I can open and mess around with Excel and that's about it. But I 'd be really anal about my rate feed requirements and how to optimise them. I basically need somebody I can bark at to build what I desire.

OLBG: Do you believe that's something other bookmakers should consider?

AK: I believe rates accuracy has become less crucial gradually in an industry that's gotten a little lazy about the fundamentals. These concerns get a little untidy when you start factoring in information and rights holders. But I'm enthusiastic about precise, optimised rates throughout the life process of a market and think the industry leaves too lots of crumbs on the table by not focusing on this topic more.

OLBG: Do you believe they would have an interest in one that you built?

AK: For sure. It's everything about the bottom line at the end of the day.

OLBG: Do you see this changing the brief to mid term future?

AK: In short, no I don't. That's what's caused me going over developing our own.